- 7 -
property, after the death of the payee spouse. Sec. 71(b)(1)(A)-
(D). The test under section 71(b)(1) is conjunctive; a payment
is includible in income as alimony only if all four requirements
of section 71(b)(1) are met. See Johnson v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2006-116; Jaffe v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-196. The
characterization of the payments as "alimony" in the divorce or
separation instrument does not affect their treatment for Federal
income tax purposes; the test is whether the foregoing
requirements are satisfied. Hoover v. Commissioner, 102 F.3d
842, 844 (6th Cir. 1996), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-183.
It is undisputed that the MSA satisfies the definition of a
divorce or separation instrument. See sec. 71(b)(2). The $1,400
monthly payments at issue herein were made in cash, the agreement
pursuant to which the payments were made did not expressly
designate that they were excludible from petitioner's income and
nondeductible by Mr. Burns,3 and petitioner and Mr. Burns were
living separate and apart. Thus, the payments received by
3 The qualified divorce instrument must contain a clear
direction with regard to tax effect to negate alimony treatment
if the payment would otherwise satisfy the requirements of sec.
71. See Richardson v. Commissioner, 125 F.3d 551 (7th Cir.
1997), affg. T.C. Memo. 1995-554; see also Estate of Goldman v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 317 (1999) (finding clear and express
direction from language of the agreement specifying that all
property transfers in the settlement agreement, including a
series of cash payments that would otherwise satisfy sec.
71(b)(1)'s requirements, were to be treated as "nontaxable"
events under sec. 1041), affd. without published opinion sub nom.
Schutter v. Commissioner, 242 F.3d 390 (10th Cir. 2000).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011